Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm writing a paper on Daemonologie in Forme of a Dialogue, and I was wondering how I should cite King James I in my works cited page. This is King James I of England who was also King James VI of Scotland, and at the time he wrote this book, he was king of Scotland, but not yet king of England. Since he is now more well-known as James I, I was leaning more towards citing him this way:

King James I. Daemonologie in Forme of a Dialogue. Edinburgh, 1597.

Should I specify that he is King James I of England, since there was another King James I who was king of Scotland prior to this James's kingship? Should I cite him as James I? I've searched my MLA handbook, which states that titles of nobility should be omitted in works cited lists, but doesn't state whether or not the same should be done for royal titles.

share|improve this question
    
Nevermind, I found the correct citation. It should be: James I, King of England. Daemonologie in forme of a dialogue. Edinburgh, 1597. –  jenn_h Mar 2 '13 at 0:17
1  
Please post your solution as an answer and accept it so the question can be marked as answered. –  terdon Mar 2 '13 at 17:15
add comment

1 Answer

Nevermind, I found the correct citation. It should be: James I, King of England. Daemonologie in forme of a dialogue. Edinburgh, 1597.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.